Regarding FTF tourneys…@questioneer:
Format is a little fast- you have to play fast to get enough rounds in to feel like you’ve somewhat completed a game…still you never feel like you’ve had enough time.
I agree, when I play a 6-round game of AA50, it doesn’t feel like I’ve completed a game by OTB standards. Given the time limit, purchases and movement in the last two rounds are always skewed toward achieving last-minute land grabs for tiebreaker points, which would never happen in an OTB game. Even so, I consider those quirks part of the tourney format and enjoy the game none the less.
@questioneer:
Playing AA is like baseball. Its really meant to be played by the number of rounds (innings) not timed quarters.
I can understand your point. Six rounds in AA50 feels like it’s the start of the midgame in chess, so you can’t predict who would ultimately win were the game to be played to OTB victory. Some players might be more satisfied with the idea of, “Hey, we have to call the game ‘early’ for Side X, but looking at the board, it was just a matter of time before they would have won anyway (gotten to 13 VC for Projection of Power, for example).” I like the current tourney format a lot but could adapt to a format that forces games to more rounds if that’s what most folks want.
@questioneer:
Chess clocks- Came up with this idea and told Smorey awhile ago. It was rejected b/c he did not want to have players pay for their own clocks ($20-30). This made no sense b/c he has all players bring there own $40-90 games, so what’s $20 more dollars???
I don’t think money is the issue. The issue is laying the chess clock requirement on folks without the grass-roots demand for it by the players. A survey or written feedback at GenCon might help back this up or not. Many, I would even say most, of the A&A folks that show up at the cons are there mainly to have a good time with friends, some of whom they only see once or twice a year at these events. They could care less whether the tourney is timed by chess clock or not.
@questioneer:
Chess clock idea is simple…Players play until one side has a VC win or they reach a certain IPC threshold on their turn (usually established for the Axis). If they run out of time that person loses “on time”. The wins would be immediate when accomplished though (VC win or IPC win) not at the end of a complete round.
Not so simple, in my opinion. You still need alternate victory conditions should the round time expire with neither side achieving the “checkmate” instant win (VC or IPC). Also, some kind of round setpoint would be needed with chess clocks; otherwise, one side could win just by playing faster. They just need enough skill to prevent the other side from getting an immediate win (VC or IPC) while playing fast, and make the other side time out. Not a very satisfying way to win, or lose. A round setpoint needs to be reasonably achievable (I would argue for 7 or 8 rounds for a 360-minute game), otherwise you’ll have situations where, by the rules players must play 10 rounds in 360 minutes, for example, but both sides use their 180 minutes exactly and only finish 7 rounds, or they’re on Germany’s 8th turn and time is called.
BB